In the extraordinary legislative session aimed at reviewing the cross-strait service trade agreement, legislators have said that they will go through the agreement clause-by-clause and vote on each clause, and that if any of the deregulated items would result in unfair competition between Taiwanese and Chinese industries, they will take a conservative approach and initiate renegotiations. While this may seem like a cautious and serious approach, it disguises the agreement as a purely economic issue, which risks ruining Taiwan’s sovereignty and freedom.
Is the service trade agreement an economic issue? Of course it is not. It is a political one, because its political goals extend way beyond its economic goals. Using economic means to spur unification has always been the most important guiding principle in China’s attempts at unifying Taiwan with China. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) is a product of this guiding principle, while the service trade agreement is the most important pillar within the ECFA framework and something that will be used to help China leverage investment, immigration and other incentives to control how Taiwanese vote and achieve its goal of unification.
From the government’s perspective, the agreement will help large conglomerates enter the Chinese market, and it will also bring Chinese capital and workers into Taiwan and help consolidate and further President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) goal of eventual unification, while helping pave the way for another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) victory in the 2016 presidential election. In this way the government can kill two birds with one stone.
The KMT knows allowing the service industry to enter China will further hollow out Taiwan and that a depressed economy and public complaints are not beneficial to the party’s chances of being re-elected. However, the Ma administration still believes that the ability to make a living is more important than the strong public outpouring of discontent. It believes that when people lose their financial power, they will choose to remain silent instead of unite in action. This, coupled with China’s promise of economic prosperity, is what the KMT believes will ensure another election victory. This was the main reason Ma won by 800,000 votes in last year’s presidential election despite four years of poor political results.
Another political motive of the service trade agreement is to bring about a meeting between Ma and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Ma’s re-election as KMT party chairman was also in line with Beijing’s “one China” principle because it helps pave the way for the same meeting. The “one China” principle, a meeting between Ma and Xi, and the service trade agreement represent a new triangle for Ma’s current policy of eventual unification. The service trade agreement is necessary for the formation of this new triangle.
We should therefore understand that the service trade agreement is not only something characterized by “backroom deals” or a lack of “communication,” but that it is also an agreement with secret political motives. This is not something that can be solved by reviewing the agreement, voting on it and negotiating parts of it that would bring about unfair competition between Taiwan and China. We should remind our legislators and economic and political leaders who wish to keep Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and democracy intact that they must understand the true nature of the service trade agreement.
We should not oppose, and maybe even welcome the economic cooperation agreement that was recently signed with New Zealand because it is purely economic in nature. Opening up and competition is nothing to be afraid of, and the signing of free-trade agreements with other countries should be encouraged. However, we should not sign the service trade agreement with China, because it is politically motivated and will only do Taiwan harm and no good.
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Drew Cameron
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS